As a Canadian resident in Romania I can 100% confirm what lommaxx says here. As an outsider of EU I feel something is "rotten in Danmark"sorry, I meant EU. The Schengen issue looks to me more a cat and mouse game between powerhouses Germany, France, Netherland and the weeklings Romania and Bulgaria. More than ten years since the Euro event EU looks week and quite badly constructed. In fact looking in the past it seams EU leadership is nowhere to be seen. The sovereign debt crisis only highlighted the huge errors in the Euro and EU construction.
Coming back to Romania and Bulgaria I too think Schengen is not an issue for these countries. Yes they were maybe not completely prepared for EU entry but nobody really cared. Why? Simple: they are a 30 million people market none of the big companies in EU could miss. No matter their own capital was almost nonexistent, no matter their competitiveness was week at best, they had to open up markets to EU products and companies. And so they did. Like Greece and Spain. Germany and the likes benefited immensely and cashed on their prize. Now that they have to open up borders its a different story ain't it? Funny though it looks they want to push Romania and Bulgaria into the hands of competition. Chinese are here big time, some Gulf countries made their entrance but hey who am I to care. Euro skepticism is bigger by the day in Romania yet as Merkel said some time ago, almost under the radar Romania has done a lot of restructuring, its sovereign debt its in a good shape and markets are recognizing it as Romania was included in the JP Morgan index. The currency is attractive and investors are already in the Ron plays and cashed nice profits. Yes the country was badly hit by the crisis, SME's especially but this a common situation in Europe. Germany doesn't like it for reasons I can't get. Maybe because their influence in the country is less than the British or American one. Most of people here speak nice English, also French, Italian, Spanish but little German. Instead of promoting themselves Germans are antagonizing Romania and I fail to figure out with what benefits. Might be something with the good relation Germany shares with Russia? Chevron is already here advancing with shale gas. Romania has a big potential and this might anger Moscow Germany's friends? Netherland as one of the biggest investors in Romania if not the biggest already, plays the German card and people I talk to here are already turning around from the Dutch openly. Its too much politics within EU and less business. Like lommaxx said there are rewards in Romania if you know how to grab them. Rest is political BS eh?

Look, I compete with China, India and Taiwan in my industry, I have to offer a lot of freebies to my customers otherwise I lose them and quality is no longer my main advantage, quality is implied to be high, because my competition offers quality too...my competition is heavily subsidized by their governments. Romania was a perfect destination, made me more competitive on the market and the opportunity came just in time or I was in the position to shut down my business because Britain is no longer the fertile place for business...My eyes are on USA: they will copy the Canadian immigration law which happens to be the best in the world, shale gas is doing just great in USA (happy to hear Romania embraces it too), tax code reform, New York stock exchange...

As a business owner I am looking at increasing my profits, opening Schengen would be good for investors especially from countries that oppose Schengen access to Romania...

Look, the unemployed in UK gets free housing, free utilities and pocket money from the government...we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people. The "dangerous" immigrants from wherever they are work our fields and crops. This is a reality. Who is draining the system? The immigrants or our own nationals?

It's a longer discussion and I wish EU and Europeans would look at the bigger picture: Schengen is just a milestone, it's not a landmark.

The EU is not a Federation. It's not even an Association where treaties are applied uniformly.

Some treaties are shared with some EU partners, others aren't. You mentioned the U.K. quite often. The U.K. is not a Schengen state. Neither is Ireland. Britain's and Ireland's residents must show their ID at the first border when they enter 'Schengen territory'. This doesn't hamper business relations or movement of people and goods, since 'Schengen' anyway requires an 'extra treaty' outside the normal EU treaties.

E.g. Switzerland is a 'Schengen country', but not an EU country. Border-free travel is neither a part of the EU standard package nor an obligation. So what's the problem when too many current Schengen members (at least 7, according to the report) don't want to eliminate border controls with Romania and Bulgaria just yet.

You say you're from Canada. Canada is, together with the USA and Mexico, a member of NAFTA, an EU-like free-trade zone. Still, you need a passport when traveling from Detroit MI to and fro Windsor ON, or Blaine WA and Surrey BC.

Not long ago the European Commission was forced to propose the reintroduction of passport controls as "under very exception circumstances" between France and Italy after a conflict between the two countries threatened to destroy the whole border-free zone.

Denmark reintroduced controls at its EU borders with Germany and Sweden in an attempt to curb crime which became rampant as too many people from Southeast Europe were abusing the border-free agreement.

I can understand that Denmark and Germany rather control commonly the influx from critical EU regions than re-erect borders between each other.

Thus, maybe for the Germans the 'voiced reason' is Romania's corruption, for others (Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, France, Finland and the Netherlands) it's simply the wealth gap which leads to an "import of crime".

The Eurozone crisis made many countries rethink the values and the basis of this Union. What happens when countries - which are not equal - take equalization-steps too early can be seen currently all over the Eurozone.

This is a vivid example and warning for all.

One last question: Why doesn't Romania eliminate borders between herself and Bulgaria to begin with, in order to see how it works?

I do mention UK a lot because I am a British investor both in UK and Romania, I know both markets pretty well by now. Import of crime? The Dutch catch small Eastern European thieves and sends them to jail; there are cases in Eastern Europe where Dutch citizens are in jail for pedophilia. You relate criminal activity to ethnicity and it's not fair, it's like saying that all British soccer fans are hooligans - and that is not fair either. Criminality is not related to ethnicity, but to individuals.

I see your point, but you are talking from books. If you were a business owner as I am, always concerned what's best for my business, you would probably relate better to my points which I have extensively presented on this particular forum. In all honesty, Romanians need access to Schengen as much as the rest of EU needs them to have it. The reality is EU needs Romania more than ever especially nowadays when the Chinese companies aggressively knock on Romanian doors. Once the Chinese will invest a few billion Euros in Romania, the Western companies can say goodbye to the 22 million people market.

All these European nations you have mentioned above are afraid even of their own shadow, they always find scapegoats for their own flaws, they are stuck in a 19th century mentality. Sadly my own home country UK is stuck in the same mentality. I have never said that Romania is the perfect land out there, but I got to know these people, I bought a property in Bucharest and let me tell you, all the news and articles in the "civilized Western media" do not reflect the reality of the Romanian behavior.

I love soccer and I am a big Arsenal fan, but I am not a hooligan. Same with Romanians: not all of them are thieves and criminals, the vast majority are decent, hard working people who want what every human being wants: a good life.

One last point and with this I will finish my input on this article: open the job markets within EU, let the British, Germans, French etc compete with Polish, Romanians, Hungarians etc. Cut the benefits and create opportunities - this way from a taker mentality, people will "migrate" to a "maker" mentality. Markets will balance the markets, may the best employee win. Unleash competition, capitalism, no more socialism; enforce the laws without hesitation: catch the criminals, thieves no matter what ethnicity, race etc, put him/ her in jail.

My reply was to lion14. You answer now as "lommaxx". Are you one and the same poster?

Anyhow, this doesn't work as you suggest, at least not in Western democracies. Politicians have to respect the will of their voters, otherwise they're voted out of office in the blink of an eye.

The job market is open. Nothing hinders a Romanian job seeker to seek employment in France or Germany. Besides the still extreme income-gap between your lower class and that of Northern Europe (which would attract they 'wrong' people to the North) the main problem is, indeed, the corruption of Greek, Bulgarian and Romanian officials, which would make illegal immigration from non-European countries an even easier task than it already is.

You wrote: "All these European nations you have mentioned above are afraid even of their own shadow". - No, you seem not to understand how Western democracies function. Politicians aren't afraid of 'their own shadows' but of their own voters. Northern voters wouldn't tolerate an uncontrolled influx of your poor for very long, also not the waves of illegal immigrants from Middle East and Africa who'd come alongside.

lion14 wrote: "More than ten years since the Euro event EU looks week (weak) and quite badly constructed. In fact looking in the past it seams EU leadership is nowhere to be seen. The sovereign debt crisis only highlighted the huge errors in the Euro and EU construction."

Yes, but why should they then make more "badly constructed" decisions?

Inviting masses of unskilled people from Southeast Europe (and surrounding areas) to feed at the welfare-tables of Northern societies would simply be another "huge error in the Euro and EU construction".

I did reply to you because you mentioned my home country too which is UK ("The U.K. is not a Schengen state. Neither is Ireland. Britain's and Ireland's residents must show their ID at the first border.....").

I do how Western democracies work - I come from one...too bad we have very skilled politicians in the art of manipulating masses...

The port of Amsterdam is the main gate of drugs to Western Europe...In Eastern Europe, the drugs are not exactly on their favorite menu...Eastern Europeans smoke a lot in fact, that's their favorite "drug", cigarettes....

"Inviting masses of unskilled people from Southeast Europe (and surrounding areas) to feed at the welfare-tables of Northern societies would simply be another "huge error in the Euro and EU construction" - Spain, Italy, Portugal are part of the South belt of EU. This is pure xenophobia and a great insult to millions of people... Surrounding areas? France, Germany, UK etc are surrounding areas of the Southeast Europe.

You can't be serious about your statements, you can't possibly believe such things...that all the negative things in the world will simply appear because of Romanians, Greeks, Bulgarians and inhabitants of Southeast Europe...

It is fair to say that I, just like you, had the same perception about Romanians and I am not proud of myself for that regarding the borders... That is until some of Italian and Spanish business partners mentioned during a lunch meeting that EU borders are vulnerable on the Italian and Spanish shores: it is easier for people from North Africa and Middle East to come to EU through here because it's cheaper and more convenient...

In my British ignorance I then took a map and things got much clearer...it made a lot of sense...many of us in Western Europe are so ignorant that we don't even know where Romania or Greece or Hungary is on the map....

By blaming everything on Eastern Europeans is simply blunt stupidity...Volvo is already a Chinese property, if they go out of business, whom are you going to blame? The Chinese? Maybe...but the fact is their cars are not as competitive as the German or American ones...Nokia is on the brink of collapse and Microsoft owns them more or less. When, not if, they collapse, will blame the Americans? Maybe. With the end of these two corporations, the Northern welfare state will end too...the markets will bury Northern Europe...this is capitalism where the strongest stays alive and the weak fall.

My point on Schengen is that politics of fear do not work but only for a short time, while the politics of openness (see USA) are a path to prosperity. We the Europeans are no longer and empire to go out there and conquer, those times are dead and buried; our only chance is to become more competitive, more efficient, more open, embrace immigration as an added value. At the same time restrict access to social programs, enforce the laws, make the shift from the welfare state (the takers) to entrepreneur state (the makers).

"Many of the illegal immigrants in the EU arrive via Greece, which is overwhelmed by the flood of incomers. The would-be migrants are ruthlessly exploited by people smugglers, and many of them die in the attempt to get to Europe. SPIEGEL heard the stories of a group of young Bangladeshi men who made it to Athens -- and discovered the reality behind the dream."

That they can't go further north, instead often go back via Turkey, is because there is tight border control between Greece and the other Schengen countries. Because Romania and Bulgaria aren't Schengen countries, Greece has no direct access to the Schengen area. This barrier would be eliminated if Bulgaria and Rumania would become Schengen countries as well.

The USA has one of the toughest immigration laws in world. Romanians and Bulgarians need to wait weeks to get a US visitor's visa processed. Many are refused. I really don't know what you are talking about.

Bulgaria and Romania need to achieve a per capita GDP close to the Schengen countries and must control rampant corruption before they can successfully apply for Schengen. Otherwise it would be as if the USA tore down the border to Mexico.

"The USA has one of the toughest immigration laws in world." - if you had read some of my comments, you would have noticed that USA is about to copy the Canadian immigration reform. The current immigration laws in USA cost the economy billions of dollars. They will have, with the new immigration law, an open approach toward the immigration, a 21st century approach. While USA is opening its arms, the EU continue to lock itself in a bubble. This was my point.

"Romanians and Bulgarians need to wait weeks to get a US visitor's visa processed" - from my knowledge, for Romanians it takes a couple of days, no idea about Bulgaria. Please check the facts.

Why do you keep associating corruption with Romania and Bulgaria? Do you hate these countries in particular? Corruption is not a phenomenon present only in this part of the world. Try corruption in Italy; check the Austrian senator from the European Parliament who was lobbing in exchange for financial advantages; have you knowledge of the former French president Chirac accused of corruption and never convicted? Can we be serious about this and actually have a serious discussion without xenophobe attitudes?

lommaxx: "Why do you keep associating corruption with Romania ... ? Do you hate these countries in particular?"

Why should I hate Romania? Yet, the only personal experience I had with Romanian people was not positive; I was victim of a team of two Romanian pickpockets when entering a train to Frankfurt/Germany. But I don't project this experience onto the whole country, in spite of the fact that police told us that whole gangs of Romanian pickpockets are infesting European train lines. But this is about corruption in Romania and not about Romanian thives on European trains.

As you can see, Romania ranks 66 and is considered more corrupt than Ghana, Namibia, Malaysia or Turkey.

In the case of Romania (and to a somewhat lesser extent Bulgaria) for the EU decision it is less important how Romanians perceive their own country, which is bad enough, but what the EU's compiled on facts. The findings are so bad that Romania's President Basescu had to admit two days ago that the country's corruption is the main reason why it is unable to tap EU funds for development — the money will simply vanish in the government's channels, as it did in the past.

The Romanian President has publicly accused his Prime Minister Victor Ponta of trying to take over control of independent institutions in Romania by means of power and corruption.

In a report published last week, the EU’s executive said Romania’s justice system and anti-corruption measures were not effective. It conceded Romania must take serious steps to safeguard constitutional law.

EU's Commission President, Jose Manuel Barros said: “The EU needs to see further progress on independence of the judiciary and appointment of the key-posts.” And he added: “We will also look to politicians to set an example by stepping aside where integrity rulings or corruption charges exist”, and that "Romania will remain under special European Union monitoring and be excluded from the passport-free Schengen zone".

So, how bad is corruption in Romania?

Somebody well-placed to answer this is Willem de Pauw, a veteran European Union adviser on corruption and a Belgian prosecutor on the matter. He wrote a report for the EU that concludes: “instead of progress in the fight against high-level corruption, Romania is regressing on all front . . . if the Romanian anti-corruption effort keeps evaporating at the present pace, in an estimated six months' time Romania will be back where it was in 2003.”

That assessment falls short of admitting that Romania's authorities are willfully failing to co-operate. Some of Mr de Pauw's most striking examples did not even appear in the official report, or were buried in footnotes. Mr de Pauw referred further inquiries about it to the EU commission.

As an outsider (I'm from India) it seems to me that Germany is very wary of new entrants into the Schengen clan, in case they go the Greek way. From what I've been reading, Germany is economically the strongest country in Europe right now and Germans are pissed off at having to work harder to support Greek debt. By allowing Romania (whom they perceive as economically not as strong as Germany would like them to be) they open up to a new asset that might become a future liability? So is it really an immigration issue as they are making it out to be?

Schengen is not about guaranteeing debt (in your example, the Germans working harder to pay for the Greeks). Schengen is about free movement of persons, services and goods. Populists in Northern Europe (Germany, Holland, etc.) put up the usual discourse of the "immigration danger" for jobs and pettty criminality.
Obviously, the anti-immigration argument is flawed, but this is difficult to digest in a period of revcession in whole Europe.
There are criminals in all countries, with or without migration. There are good people in all countries, looking for a better paid job abroad, with or without migration.
What we, the Dutch seem to forget in all this anti-immigration BS is that immigrants always made us rich, that immigrants were key to our economic success (when we had it, long ago). We also forget that the population is quickly aging and that we desperately need immigrants.

If Romania is admitted in Schengen area than the border controls between Hungary and Romania (Hungary being the only adjacent to Romania EU country) will be abolished and so those travelling by car from Romania (regardless of nationality) to Hungary and beyond will save time and trouble.
The same will happen with the border between Greece and Bulgaria.
The rational argument against Bulgaria and Romanian being admitted into Schengen is that emigrants into EU from Asia will bribe their way through Romania (or Bulgaria) and will be able to reach freely any European destination afterwards if they travel by car.
Rationally it has nothing to do with fears of an influx of Romanian immigrants after 2014 because Romanians can travel visa free into EU countries by virtue of the EU membership of Romania.
On the other hand, denying Schengen membership to Romania and Bulgaria is a mean through which Brussels can exercise pressure on those countries to reform.
Now to be sincere with you, as a Romanian, I prefer it this way than the alternative of impudent Romanian politicians.

Why do EU countries need to be member of the Schengen Club in order to travel freely? The idea behind the Schengen agreement was to make cross border cooperation easier and allow cities and regions which are divided by a border to share infrastructure, workplaces and local public transport. Neither Romania nor Bulgaria share a border with Holland.

This is also why the Schengen agreement is not part of the basic EU package and why it's open for non-EU countries as well (if signatory states agree). Switzerland, e.g., is a Schengen country but not an EU country. The islands Ireland and Britain are EU countries but not Schengen countries.

Denmark recently reintroduced controls at its EU borders with Germany and Sweden in an attempt to curb crime, which became rampant as too many people from Southeast Europe were abusing the border-free agreement.

At the end Holland, Belgium and Germany erect borders again because they introduced passport-free travel to and fro Romania. This, then, will be surely the end of the EU.

Dear economist,
who on earth is writing your articles about Romania? I'm not a native speaker of English, but they at least taught me the past tense at school..."In 2012 The Netherlands oppose..."??
You can say a lot about Romanians and Bulgarians, but Romanians do speak their languages.
Where did you find LC? In the gutter?

If Flying Dutch implies that Bulgarians don't speak their language, The Economist implies they don't exist at all: Bulgaria is mentioned in the title, but that's about all. Is it rude? Nah, just unprofessional.

Less than a life time ago, three men sat down and proceeded to split a part of the world... that more or less affects the topic of this here story. And so, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, a scuffle between F.D Roosevelt and the British Lion resulted in a good part of Europe going to evil Stalin, who mostly beat a greater evil, Hitler, whose descendants are now lecturing the formerly abused as are their British cousins; but only because they've been ruling the word with impunity - and Heaven's forbid not mention THIS - their kind spread civilization to all corners of the world.
Keep lecturing...Wallow in your History, wallow!

Their scuffle was about how many of those who managed to make it away from Stalin's horror empire should be forcibly returned there and perish in the Gulag. FDR argued for moderation, but Churchill prevailed and doomed untold millions.

According to the secret Moscow agreement from 1944 that was confirmed at the 1945 Yalta conference, all Soviet citizens from the Western zone of occupation (about 5 million people) were to be repatriated without choice — a death sentence for many by execution: quick, by a firing squad, or slow, in the communist slave-labor camps.
.
Among those forcibly returned to Stalin were hundreds of thousands who have never been Soviet citizens; they were returned with their families - and even mass suicide among them failed to stop deportations by British.
.
Add the whole populations of Hungary, Romania, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Poland, Estonia... how many millions is that? They were also betrayed in Yalta.
.
If you read sometimes anything more than text messages, try Victims of Yalta (title of the American edition: The Secret Betrayal) by Nikolai Tolstoy.

In the National Archives in Washington there exists a short clip of film which would appear to be the only one of its kind ever made. It is the unedited footage taken by an American army camera unit at a prisoner of war camp in southern Germany in February 1946. For many years this unique piece of film was not available for public inspection. What it recorded was a small part of a vast operation that was one of the most sensitive of the Second World War, the handing over to Stalin of large numbers of Russians who in varying circumstances found themselves under German control by the war's end. Some of these Russians had been organized into military units to fight alongside German forces against the Red Army; in addition to them were well-known Cossack regiments who had left their homeland in the period 1917 - 1921 after the defeat of the White Russian armies by the Bolsheviks.

The fate of these Russians was one of the best kept secrets of the war. As many as could surrendered to American and British forces, trusting that they would eventually be able to settle somewhere outside the Soviet Union. But in February 1945, at the Yalta conference, Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to Stalin's demand that they be handed over to him. The anti-Soviet Russians in the hands of the western allies would therefore be betrayed. To carry out the repatriation order, American and British servicemen often had to resort to deception and brute force. No one doubted what was in store for the Russians once they were in Soviet hands. Many were executed on the spot. In some instances, Allied guards responsible for turning over their prisoners could see their bodies hanging in the forests where the exchange took place.

The nature of all Kremlin regimes, from Ivan The Terrible (1533) to Vlad The Terrible (current), wasn't any secret for Europeans. So the lesson of the Yalta betrayal is more about Western politicians (like Churchill or Schröder) who play along with the Kremlin.

The agreement was made between two victorious partners; any person would have implied that the behaviour of a "humanist popular" system, would be one of responsibility in dealing with alleged collaborators! Double betrayal indeed!

One cannot make such a confusion between words and facts the latter one only determine the culpability!

"Schengen membership (if ever they get it) will not bring a major change"
No offence but you either do not know what Schengen membership means or your idea of a “major change” is a bit twisted to say the least.

Yet another well documented article on Eastern Europe! Thank you Economist! – sarcasm..

TE: "For Romanians the Schengen membership (if ever they get it) will not bring a major change. They have been able to travel around Europe only with their ID or passport since 2007 when their country became an EU member."

What is wrong with this statement? TE is a British paper. All its British correspondents, including the one who wrote this article, need "their ID or passport" when traveling into the Schengen Association of states. As the common currency, the Schengen agreement is not part of the basic EU treaty package.

E.g. Switzerland is a 'Schengen country', but not an EU country. Britain is an EU country but not a Schengen country. So what's the problem, besides an ego-problem?

Let's be honest. A number of former communist countries from Central and Eastern Europe, including Romania and Bulgaria, were allowed to join the EU before they truly met all the necessary criteria. The reason was primarily geostrategic: to create a buffer against resurgent Russia's power. At that time the EU still enjoyed relative prosperity and therefore was able to swallow the insufficiently qualified new members. Now that the crisis has striken, the mistakes that once were possible to neglect are increasingly coming to the surface.

You should also add countries in southern Europe like Greece to your list of non deserving entrants to the EU. Perhaps more important than the state of compliance at the time of entry is what these countries have done since then. While the southern countries went on spending binges, that now risk derailing the whole EU, most countries in central, eastern and Baltic Europe have contributed to the economic growth and dynamism of the whole continent.

It's true, but bear also in mind that those more developed countries (from northern and western Europe) were the ones which, as older EU members, decided to let in those others, i.e. less developed - and less fiscally responsible - countries (from eastern and southern Europe) even though they could have decided otherwise and thus prevented undesirable developments we are witnessing today.

"...and less fiscally responsible - countries (from eastern and southern Europe)..."
Are you serious? This is a good joke.
Are you suggesting that the countries from N Europe are fiscally responsible? Do the names Ireland, France, UK, even Germany tell you anything? France and Germany have eroded the EU stability pact not obeying years after year to its prescriptions on government deficit (3%) and gross debt (60%) in relation to GDP. They were happily joined by UK, Ireland and many other “fiscally responsible” countries.
Lets’ give you as simple example: Romania’s debt to GDT is ~78%, Germany 81%, France 86%, UK 85%, Ireland 89%.
Budget deficit: Romania 3%, UK, -8.3%, France 4.5%, Netherlands 4.1%
Practically France and UK should be expelled from the EU.

By saying that countries from eastern and southern Europe are "less fiscally resposible" I do not imply that northern and western EU countries are fiscally responsible. The facts about debt-to-GDP ratios which you are emphasizing are correct - by the way, the U.S. is even worse than Europeans in that respect - but the key question is what level of debt a particular country can sustain. Countries that are naturally richer - meaning they are blessed with plenty of arable land, navigable rivers, strategically important natural resources... - can afford higher indebtedness than others. However, the fact that they can afford it does not mean that they should do so. Therefore, I agree with you that Germany, France and other countries that have broken the finanical rule concerning debt-to-GDP ratio have no moral right to point the finger at others, regardless of who can or cannot sustain this or that level of debt. Actually, it is precisely the disposition of national governments, not only in Europe but across the world, to continually spend lavishly that have played the main role in the emergence of the global economic crisis.

Well, I don´t see big difference fighting corruption in Romania an Bulgaria with Slovakia, Hungary, Czech Republic... All those post-communist countries are ruled same - by corrupted politicians, free elected by their citizens:) I would like also remind, mr. Friedrich, that biggest "teachers" in corruption, blackmailing in those countries were western, private companies, which begun occupy market after fall of iron curtain. Well, and what is difference between corruption in "east" and "west". Just in level of sophistication :):)

It is well known that both countries have met all the necessary criteria for joining Schengen and that certain other countries have changed the goalposts to inhibit their entry.

Of course this is all political rubbish and any negative comments towards either country can be equally applied to many that are already part of Schengen (or not, for example the UK).

On a personal note, it is annoying that I am obliged to show my passport more times travelling across country between Bulgaria (where I am resident) and the UK (where I am a citizen), entirely within the EU, than I am travelling the same distance, in the opposite direction, across Turkey that isn't even part of the EU (5 times vs twice).

You haven't read the article. It's at least 7 additional Schengen countries which are currently against a Schengen-enlargement southwards: (Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, France, Finland, Austria and the Netherlands). Given the Eurozone mess, I think it's rather wise to consolidate at first, before pushing for further premature admissions. The whole Eurozone is, because of such irresponsibility, at the verge of a break-up.

As a British IT business owner, 40% of my employees are Romanians, located in Bucharest and London. Great people, hard working and very creative. With or without Schengen, my business and my employees aren't affected at all. UK is not in Schengen and we really don't mind. I tried to hire Brits, but they know nothing: lazy, smell alcohol when they come to job interviews...Did you know that 2 million people in UK with ages between 22 - 30 never had a job in their life? I want new immigrants to come and work here in UK. It's good for business environment, it's good for the economy...Competition is good, not bad. Romanians already travel freely in Europe and if an employee wants to hire them, no one can stop him/ her from doing so. My advise for Romanians: Schengen doesn't bring you a better life, it's just German and French politics, don't worry about it. Of course there are bad elements in the Romanian society...in the British society we are all perfect....yeah, right. Corruption in Romania?! We do not have corruption in UK, we are perfect....Italy is more corrupt than Romania...Come on people, let's get serious here, some common sense won't hurt us.

Let's hear what you are willing to pay employees. I work in IT am not lazy and don't smell of alcohol yet I bet you couldn't afford my wages. Skilled workers should be paid for that skill, too many companies want our expertise for free.

I have also managed to hire English people in IT who do not fit your description at all. All the immigrant candidates were nowhere near qualified to do the job. Sounds to me you are one of these whingeing bosses who want to pay less than minimum wage to skilled workers.

FYI - I don't discriminate in any way in terms of wages. For example those working in UK, they get the British wage close to 6,500 Euros per month after taxes...those working in Bucharest make about 2,500 - 3,000 Euros per month after taxes. It's called capitalism, we are not all equal, it's all based on taxes, law of the land etc....it's all based on a variety of factors. Indeed having the Bucharest branch increases my profit with 5%-6% per year, while the British one increases it with only 3%. But again this is capitalism - in USA it's the same: those living in California are making more than those living in Alabama for example. Capitalism is not about equality.

Meanwhile our Brits prefer to collect benefits rather than working, the Romanians and Bulgarians will not drain our system, we the Brits have already started to do so a long time ago. Immigrants come here to work our crops because we the Brits are too marvelous to do so, we are a special creation of Divinity....Britain has become a lazy nation, afraid of the outside world, less and less educated...we live in the past, this is 2013, the 21st century.

And Schengen?! Because it's all related to free traveling and so forth...This year USA will reform the immigration process and the tax code making things more flexible...guess what's going to happen: ECONOMIC GROWTH. While we lock ourselves in the bubble, they will welcome the brains, skilled workers and the agriculture workers.

For that kind of money I don't see how you didn't get any good English candidates, the people prefer to collect benefits when the wage doesn't make up for the loss of benefits. You claim to be paying more than an MP's wage, not a lot of people who are qualified for the job would turn that down to stay on benefits.

Funny you should mention California, I lived and worked there for the last 7 years and the wages there are comparable to what you are paying. So in my opinion (so not a fact only opinion) you are telling porkies somewhere along the line to justify your hiring practices.

Here's a little background. I am 100% Brit and in 2006 I made my first trip in Romania - so I got there as an ignorant dumb Brit expecting all the bad things I was hearing and reading about. First impression: great people, expensive cars all over the place, nice restaurants, food and drink are cheap (compared to a British income)....I was shocked in a positive way...Indeed some bad elements too, things I didn't like, but I haven't seen perfection yet at my age of 38...so pretty much a normal country with normal people....then I saw all these corporate offices, factories and I felt so ashamed of my ignorance...2 years later I have bought a property in Bucharest and I opened the Bucharest location for my business. I will continue to hire once the market allows me too, but I won't do it in UK, in Bucharest only. I pay my employees well because we do work with high end customers and our revenue is high too.

P.S. The food is awesome in Romania, all natural and cheaper than the junk we get in our grocery stores - do not buy food at the groceries stores in Romania, same as in Britain, go to the farmers instead. Beer is cheap too.

Keep the treasure that you found for yourself. Do you really want an influx of your fellow countrymen in Romania? That would cut from your competitive advantage. But you know that they will not come. And that is because they lack your courage, taste for adventure and nonconformist attitude. Keep up the good job sir. Respect.

As a business owner and private citizen here are my pros and cons for Romania. My issues in Romania have nothing to do with corruption. If one really wants to see real corruption, he/ she needs to travel in Greece and Italy.

Cons: It takes too long to open a business, make it more reasonable (within 30 days), reduce bureaucracy (one stop shop for all paperwork), have one portal where I can pay my taxes, improve the infrastructure (although in the last 3 years things have improved, it is not enough).

Another thing that bothers me in Romania are the street dogs, but in Britain we have the hooligans and the youth sleeping drunk on the streets. So the two countries are kind of even at this chapter.

I love Britain because it's my home country, but our arrogance and ignorance will harm us. I love Romania because it's fun and it keeps changing every day, from one year to another there are real changes, it's not static.

All is so big comedy movie,and the biggest hidden power is Germany....is not so good to play games.to play like democrat,but really the true is different...so long those two country's expect to enjoy ,but every time someone say something,to stop...and again start over .....please no more games,no more unfair players, and last why? Bulgarians already travel so long without visa,already is EU member,already is NATO member....please guys stopit, those two country's got history, there are more in Europe,and if someone don't like that ........just a big scam and joke from all EU members

All is so big comedy movie,and the biggest hidden power is Germany....is not so good to play games.to play like democrat,but really the true is different...so long those two country's expect to enjoy ,but every time someone say something,to stop...and again start over .....please no more games,no more unfair players, and last why? Bulgarians already travel so long without visa,already is EU member,already is NATO member....please guys stopit, those two country's got history, there are more in Europe,and if someone don't like that ........just a big scam and joke from all EU members

"Romania and Bulgaria were hoping to find out of the date of their admission to the passport-free Schengen zone"

Romanian and Bulgarian POLITICIANS are hoping to score another point by joining one more club, while disregarding common sense and legitimate concerns of Bulgarians and Romanians that our countries will turn into transit depots for immigrants from Asia and Africa. Many Europeans are not very happy about the acceptance of Bulgaria and Romania into the EU, and an eventual acceptance into Schengen will lead to much worse consequences for all of us. Let's hope that not only Germany has some common sense left.